State v. Barton, No. 51921

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: GARFIELD; All Justices concur, except SNELL
• Citation: 140 N.W.2d 886,258 Iowa 924
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Kenneth BARTON, Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 51921
• Decision Date: 08 March 1966

Page 886

140 N.W.2d 886 258 Iowa 924 STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Kenneth BARTON, Appellant. No. 51921. Supreme Court of Iowa. March 8, 1966.

[258 Iowa 926]

Page 887

Donald D. Mullin, Creston, for appellant.

Lawrence F. Scalise, Atty. Gen., Don R. Bennett, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gary L. Anderson, County Atty., Creston, for appellee.

Page 888

GARFIELD, Chief Justice.

Defendant Kenneth Barton was indicted for the crime of assault with intent to commit manslaughter upon Anna Barton (his mother), and with being an habitual criminal, in violation of section 747.5, Code, 1962, in that he had twice previously been convicted of crime, sentenced and committed to prison for terms of five years. Two competent, experienced attorneys were appointed to defend him. Upon his plea of not guilty to the crime of assault with intent to commit manslaughter defendant was tried and found guilty by a jury. He later admitted the two alleged prior convictions and was sentenced to a term not to exceed 25 years in the state penitentiary at Fort Madison.

Defendant's appeal assigns three errors: 1) giving jury instruction 14 relating to his failure to testify and 2) instruction 13 relating to flight; 3) overruling defendant's motion for new trial alleging he did not receive a fair trial. We find no merit in either the second or third assignments but feel compelled to sustain the first and order a new trial.

No extended statement of the evidence is needed. On the evening of January 1, 1965, defendant, age 30, went to the home in Creston of his father and mother, aged 70 and 63, announced he had come to kill his father and proceeded to administer to him [258 Iowa 927] a severe beating without legal provocation; when defendant's mother and his wife (also present) attempted to prevent further brutality defendant struck his mother on the jaw with his fist and over the head three or four times with a five-cell flashlight; when the two women tried to wrest from defendant an electric drill weighing 7 3/4 pounds with which he was beating his father, defendant threw the drill at his mother, it struck her in the side of the head and 'bashed' her face in; there was a cut four inches long and three-fourths inch deep in the mother's head from which she bled profusely.

Finally defendant suggested to his father that the fight end and he was ready to go to Fort Madison (site of the state penitentiary where defendant had been committed after his second prior conviction); when the father and defendant stood up after this announcement defendant 'floored' his father again and stomped and kicked him in the stomach some more; the mother's face, body and dress were covered with blood and the floor of the room 'looked like they had butchered.'

Defendant's sister took her mother to the Creston hospital soon after he left the home and she was a patient there until January 4. In addition to the deep cut in her head Mrs. Barton's eyes were black and swollen and she suffered a mild concussion.

Defendant did not testify and no evidence was offered in his behalf.

I. We quote jury instruction 14: 'The defendant did not testify before you as a witness. He has a legal right to testify or not as he chooses. The burden rests upon the State to prove all the material allegations of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.

'The fact that defendant did not testify in his own behalf may be considered by you together with all the evidence in the case bearing upon this subject in determining the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.'

Defendant did not object to instruction 14 when given nor in his motion for new trial filed six days later, although he did object to instruction 13 on the ground evidence of flight was insufficient to warrant submission of the question. Defendant also objected to another instruction, likewise on an untenable ground. [258 Iowa 928] The trial was concluded on March 4, 1965. Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, was decided April 28, 1965.

On the question of defendant's failure to testify in a criminal case, the

Page 889

Griffin opinion concludes: 'We * * * hold that the Fifth Amendment, * * * in its bearing on the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accused's silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt.'

Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 86 S.Ct. 459 (January 19, 1966), holds the rule of Griffin v. State of California is not to be given retrospective application. In Tehan the judgment of conviction had been finally affirmed by the state appellate courts and the supreme court had refused to intercede almost two years before the Griffin decision was filed. Footnote 3 to the Tehan opinion states: 'Nor is there any question of the applicability of the Griffin rule to cases still pending on direct review at the time it was announced. Cf. O'Connor v. Ohio, 382 U.S. 286, 86 S.Ct. 445, 15 L.Ed.2d 337, December 13, 1965.'

Barton was sentenced March 26, 1965, and appealed May 20. So apparently the supreme court has directed application of Griffin v. State of California to such a case as this which is here on direct appeal. On the stength of the cited decision we have been compelled to reverse convictions in State v. Johnson, 257 Iowa ----, 135...